SAVVIDIS v. City of Norwalk
129 Conn. App. 406
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiff and co-owners sought mandamus and damages for delays in obtaining a certificate of occupancy for property in Norwalk.
- In August 2007, court granted mandamus for a certificate of occupancy but did not award money damages, and defendant later withdrew its appeal.
- In August 2008, plaintiff filed a separate action seeking monetary damages for lost rental income and related costs from April 27, 2004, to May 30, 2008.
- Cross motions for summary judgment were filed; plaintiff argued res judicata barred new claims; defendant argued res judicata applied because damages could have been pursued in the first action.
- Trial court denied both motions for summary judgment, finding unresolved factual questions about res judicata, and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars Savvidis's damages claim | Savvidis argues the first action did not adjudicate lost rental income; thus claim is new | Norwalk contends the first action precludes relitigation of all related claims arising from the same transaction | Yes; res judicata bars the current damages claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Lighthouse Landings, Inc. v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 300 Conn. 325 (2011) (articulates broad preclusion principles and balancing of policy interests)
- Weiss v. Weiss, 297 Conn. 446 (2010) (summary judgment standard; plenary review of res judicata rulings)
- Cheryl Terry Enterprises v. Hartford, 270 Conn. 619 (2004) (damages for future profits recoverable with adequate evidentiary basis)
- Singhaviroj v. Board of Education, 124 Conn.App. 228 (2010) (appealability of denial of summary judgment on res judicata grounds)
- BNY Western Trust v. Roman, 295 Conn. 194 (2010) (rests on Restatement guidance for preclusion and transactional approach)